Summilux-SL 50 MM F/1,4 ASPH

[adamdewilde]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am slightly amused when people strongly object to one kind of correction that can easily be applied by simply using a computer algorithm, yet they accept all manners of corrections which greatly add to the number of lenses, the weight of the lens, the complexity of the construction and, hence, to the cost of the whole assembly without ever attaining an image with zero artefacts.

 

What actually bothers me is that half the people here who are more then happy to accept that Leica implements digital corrections would sneer and balk at another company for doing it. For instance Fuji X series, they got slammed for it by a lot of people who shoot Leica and praise Leica for not using digital corrections back a few years ago. 

 

That and with that mentality you could make a nifty fifty into the best lens in the world with a whole hell a lot of photoshop skills.

Or for that matter the new iPhone algorithm to give you DOF looks promising, why not just buy an iPhone 7+?

 

OR why aren't Leica lenses smaller and cheaper if they're corrected digitally?

 

I'm not 100% against digital corrections. TBH I was just saying that it can't be the best lens, or a "reference" lens, and their Chairman shouldn't go around calling it the best lens ever when there are other lenses (Otus) that beat it optically. 

 

And to be fair, the digital corrections in the Q bothers me more then the 50SL does. But because there is no chance of adaptability from the Q, I don't worry so much about it's ability to be future proof.

 

 

Looks like I won't be getting the mini-review up till Monday, so I can post a few random images that I kinda liked. Nothing fancy though. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[pop]

....

That and with that mentality you could make a nifty fifty into the best lens in the world with a whole hell a lot of photoshop skills.

Or for that matter the new iPhone algorithm to give you DOF looks promising, why not just buy an iPhone 7+?

....

Are you quite sure you're qualified to do a review of a lens worth reading?

[adamdewilde]

Calling you a liar? No, I don't know enough about you to do that. Do I believe you? No, not really. Do I care? Not particularly. You see, everything you post is about you, and it just isn't that interesting.

 

 

Then block me, along with the people who thanked you for this and the scott fellow who gave you the +1. 

FYI I'm a bit more interesting then you as far as this topic is concern. Considering I've access to the lens and you don't. 

 

Doesn't look like Photokina to me:

 

 

 

 

NOW, a quick question to people who might know.. How do I block certain people so they don't see my images?

[adamdewilde]

Are you quite sure you're qualified to do a review of a lens worth reading?

 

 

A lens worth reading about is subjective if you ask me.

Qualified, probably not. But what qualifies someone? I've not seen a qualified review in my life. But I've read a lot of reviews and have taken a look at peoples images. And have gotten a pretty good idea, good enough to warrant further testing.

[zlatkob]

How about purely optical corrections? Maybe some images look better without them too.

 

No lens is perfect and is full of compromises. We all know this and repeat it often. If one set of compromises doesn't suit you, choose a different lens that suits you better. Defining perfection is really such an exercise in subjectivity that it becomes nothing more than vanity if taken to the extremes that occasionally appear here.

 

 

I'm talking about digital corrections.  When a photographer chooses a lens, they should always have the opportunity to see how it looks with and without digital correction.  For some images, digital correction will look better.  For other images, digital correction will look worse.  I have made the comparison time after time after time, and have sometimes preferred correction and other times no correction.  For an architectural subject, correction is likely to look better.  For pictures of people, digital correction can sometimes worsen an image with odd stretching and unwanted changes in framing.  But which is which is subjective, so the decision should be left to the photographer.  Does anyone disagree with giving control to the photographer?

[phongph]

Then block me, along with the people who thanked you for this and the scott fellow who gave you the +1. 

FYI I'm a bit more interesting then you as far as this topic is concern. Considering I've access to the lens and you don't. 

 

Doesn't look like Photokina to me:

 

 

 

 

NOW, a quick question to people who might know.. How do I block certain people so they don't see my images?

Hi Adamdewilde!

Pls. review some IQ of SL 50 Lux vs Apo M 50 on SL 601 if possible since waiting until monday will take long time for me!

I like to take Apo M 50 for my SL 601, just wait for the comparision with SL 50 Lux!

Thanks in advance!

[Joakim]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Are you quite sure you're qualified to do a review of a lens worth reading?

I've read some articles by Adam and they where absolutely worthwhile reading in my opinion.

[ZHNL]

A 5.5K us 1kg Leica standard lens require digital correction, I hope it is not true. I hope the correction is not baked in DNG, does it? If it turn out barrel distortion less than 1%, I think it I OK but I wish less.

 

Consumer zoom require digital correction is perfect fine and welcome, that is make them cheaper and smaller and make JPEG looks good but premium standard lens from Leica? Sorry. I will hold my judgment as I really haven't seen anything yet, I don't know what has been applied to what degree yet. I will keep finger crossed.

 

I have to say I am surprised for the responses seen here, wow, Leica users are really nice, tolerant crowd that great for any manufactures. I hope it is large enough to make Leica thrive.

[IkarusJohn]

Well, I guess I'm a bit of a curmudgeon holding off judgment on the lens until it is finally released, and tested on an SL, with its apparently poor sensor.

 

As I mentioned above, till then, it's just noise. Damaging noise, as I loathe good products being condemned on spurious grounds.

[jmahto]

Then block me, along with the people who thanked you for this and the scott fellow who gave you the +1. 

FYI I'm a bit more interesting then you as far as this topic is concern. Considering I've access to the lens and you don't. 

 

Doesn't look like Photokina to me:

 

 

 

 

NOW, a quick question to people who might know.. How do I block certain people so they don't see my images?

How do we know that this picture is not digitally corrected?

 

Sorry, I could not resist.

 

Now, if you simply take some time off from back and forth and give us something better to chew on (I mean your review comments, pics etc.). Personally, I don't care much whether some CEO said this is the bestest lens ever. If the results is good for my usage (optically, digitally corrected or not) and I can afford the price, I will buy it. If some other maker sells an appealing system costing less then I will go there instead of venting. This is how market economics work.

[jmahto]

All the talk of digital correction (discussed many times before) got me thinking... Many wide M lenses perform poorly without the micro lenses on M sensor (see performance on Sony FF bodies). Does it mean that these M lenses are bad?

 

I am making a point that optical path in the lens is just one part in the whole system. In film days, it was the only image making part in the whole system (since film was "dumb"). Now in digital, we have sensor (with micro lenses) and digital circuitry taking active part in producing final image. Distortion, chromatic aberration, noise etc can be fine tuned for the final image. I think focusing on only the optical path in the lens is like being stuck in film era mentality.

[Chaemono]

Then block me, along with the people who thanked you for this and the scott fellow who gave you the +1. 

FYI I'm a bit more interesting then you as far as this topic is concern. Considering I've access to the lens and you don't. 

 

Doesn't look like Photokina to me:

 

 

 

 

NOW, a quick question to people who might know.. How do I block certain people so they don't see my images?

[Chaemono]

It probably is at Photokina. You asked if you could mount the 50 on your SL and all of a sudden you excused yourself as you had to go pee. You ran into the next bathroom, pulled out your cellphone, found a white wall, and snapped it. Of course, I could be wrong...Please, don't block me.

[steppenw0lf]

Have you ever used a Meyer Trioplan for the SL ? The results are quite interesting, sometimes even "better" than the results from a highly corrected lens (AFAIK the trioplan has only 3 lenses and no aspherics among them).

Having used many lenses from different sources I am simply astonished that there is such a fuss about a little more or a little less correction from computers/processors (be it in a camera or in a pc).

At the same time, we all probably know that most/all professionally used pictures are at least "sharpened" to some degree and probably also enhanced in a few other (much ruder) ways. That is what is common in our time, and the results are everywhere. (No exceptions).

 

This discussion about lens correction is just extremely far from reality. Maybe a nice pass-time for some self-promoters. But mostly boring  ...

[LD_50]

Have you ever used a Meyer Trioplan for the SL ? The results are quite interesting, sometimes even "better" than the results from a highly corrected lens (AFAIK the trioplan has only 3 lenses and no aspherics among them).

Having used many lenses from different sources I am simply astonished that there is such a fuss about a little more or a little less correction from computers/processors (be it in a camera or in a pc).

At the same time, we all probably know that most/all professionally used pictures are at least "sharpened" to some degree and probably also enhanced in a few other (much ruder) ways. That is what is common in our time, and the results are everywhere. (No exceptions).

 

This discussion about lens correction is just extremely far from reality. Maybe a nice pass-time for some self-promoters. But mostly boring ...

Since I was part of the discussion, providing a viewpoint that some agree with and some don't, please cut the insults. I've done no self promoting here. The required corrections are "reality" for these SL lenses and not "reality" for a number of others that are similar in size and/or price. The 50 is yet to be seen.

 

I still like the results from the 24-90 and SL and I still prefer Leica disclose the need for corrections.

 

Disagree and leave it at that.

[scott kirkpatrick]

All the talk of digital correction (discussed many times before) got me thinking... Many wide M lenses perform poorly without the micro lenses on M sensor (see performance on Sony FF bodies). Does it mean that these M lenses are bad?

 

I am making a point that optical path in the lens is just one part in the whole system. In film days, it was the only image making part in the whole system (since film was "dumb"). Now in digital, we have sensor (with micro lenses) and digital circuitry taking active part in producing final image. Distortion, chromatic aberration, noise etc can be fine tuned for the final image. I think focusing on only the optical path in the lens is like being stuck in film era mentality.

 

Agreed.  In fact the SL sensor (and presumably the one used in the Q as well) is much more tolerant of short exit pupil distances than the sensors Sony used in their current models.  And with the recent upgrade of the 28 Elmarit, 28 Summicron, and 35 Summicron, there seem to be no wide angles left that don't do as well on the SL as on the M, sometimes better.  I can vouch for the 18 SEM, the 21 SEM and the 28 Elmarit-asph M lenses.  All the rest are reasonably telecentric, and should not be a concern.  There may be a number of third party lenses (CV and SuperAngulon) that will still give problems, but the latest superwide CV lenses seem to be working well (See Vieri's posts).  Finally, post processing done with the demosaiced RGB image works really well -- but that's a long and heated discussion.

 

scott 

[scott kirkpatrick]

...

I still like the results from the 24-90 and SL and I still prefer Leica disclose the need for corrections.

 

 

If lens corrections are passed in the DNG file, you can detect them with software, such as Adobe's free SDK for DNG processing.  The previous lens technical data material included a distortion chart, but the newer lenses don't have that information, since it is now zeroed out in the dng.

 

scott

[jmahto]

It probably is at Photokina. You asked if you could mount the 50 on your SL and all of a sudden you excused yourself as you had to go pee. You ran into the next bathroom, pulled out your cellphone, found a white wall, and snapped it. Of course, I could be wrong...Please, don't block me.

The geo tag in the EXIF shows photonokia. Gotcha

 

 

.....

I was simply kidding. EXIF is cleaned, but your theory seems quite sound to me (based on minute details of the events). :)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[ZHNL]

So, the correction is baked in DNG. Did S glasses also have correction baked in DNG? What has been corrected in DNG? does it transparent to User? 

 

Is that also means all those Impressive DATA sheet Leica published are after digital correction? Like those Vignette? Distortion number? How about those MTF? are they apply sharpening in edge? Can we have a little more detail on this?  

 

I hope it is not the case and If it is, Leica need mention that in their Data sheet: All the graph shown in here are after digital correction. 

 

Again, it is not about fussy for 'small' thing, it is about honest to Customer as a premium manufacture to justify cost, size and' redefined Standard' Statement.

 

Sorry, I sound harsh but that is what I feel after reading comment here and hearing this nonsense.  

[jmahto]

Have you ever used a Meyer Trioplan for the SL ? The results are quite interesting, sometimes even "better" than the results from a highly corrected lens (AFAIK the trioplan has only 3 lenses and no aspherics among them).

Having used many lenses from different sources I am simply astonished that there is such a fuss about a little more or a little less correction from computers/processors (be it in a camera or in a pc).

At the same time, we all probably know that most/all professionally used pictures are at least "sharpened" to some degree and probably also enhanced in a few other (much ruder) ways. That is what is common in our time, and the results are everywhere. (No exceptions).

 

This discussion about lens correction is just extremely far from reality. Maybe a nice pass-time for some self-promoters. But mostly boring  ...

Highlight mine.... Sharpening is not limited to digital. "Unsharp Mask" technique is from film era.

 

People looking for "perfection" in the lens design are not thinking like engineers working in camera companies. For engineers there is no such thing as "perfection". Engineering is all about compromises to achieve a desired goal. As long as the goal is met (I believe 24-90 does meet the goal), all the good.